NEWS
MATCH REPORTS
DIARY
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
PEOPLE
ARCHIVES

The Cricket Interview / Ratnakar Shetty

Change is in the air!

His designation is Joint Honorary Secretary, Mumbai Cricket Association.

But within cricket administration circles, Professor Ratnakar Shetty's standing far exceeds that very prosaic designation.

Shetty is one of the board's Praetorian guard, that inner circle that is in the know of things as they are, not as the board would like us to think they are.

More importantly, he is a member of the rules committee that recently examined the structure of the selection committee, with a view to a change.

Shetty is also a fluent, no holds barred interviewee, not accustomed to ducking issues no matter how controversial.

In passing, the 'professor' is not, mind you, a honorific, but rather, the sign of his real profession, Shetty being a member of the teaching staff of Wilson College, Mumbai.

Follows, excerpts from an extended conversation with Faisal Shariff

Your reaction to the selection of two 'equally strong' teams?

In the given circumstances, this is the best thing that could have happened. For India to participate in the Commonwealth Games is as important as it is to fulfill the commitment to the Sahara Cup. And since the dates clash, that was the only possible way we could have participated in both the tournaments.

So the board had already decided to send a team for the Games?

Yes, the concensus within the BCCI was that we would participate in the Games, but that the IOA should not be permitted to dictate terms like team composition. They kept making all these announcements, of how they would not allow a 'weak' team to participate. The board decided that the national selectors alone would decide the team composition, and that it would be a good team.

Given that the BCCI is autonomous, what sparked this whole controversy off anyway?

The fact of the matter is that this is the first time that cricket has figured in the Games. Yes, the BCCI is autonomous, we do not depend upon government grants, unlike the associations of other sports and games affiliated to the IOA, so ours in that sense is an absolutely special case.

When the IOA kept talking of a strong team, did they have anyone in mind, in particular? Say Sachin Tendulkar?

Their view was that since cricket is being played in the Games for the first time, and the IOA felt that there is a good chance of winning a medal -- as you know, England is not sending a team, the West Indies are split into smaller teams, and most other nations are sending B teams except Australia. The IOA's thinking was that if India sent a team strong enough to beat Australia, then we have a good prospect for a medal.

Since these matches are not recognised by the ICC, wouldn't it have been better to blood young, upcoming players?

Personally, I think it is a great sacrifice by the reputed cricketers like Sachin, Ajay Jadeja and Anil Kumble, because they will be playing matches that are not rated by the ICC and, further, missing matches against Pakistan.

But somewhere along the line, national consideration has to be taken into account. People have been spreading rumours that cricketers and the cricket board are all for money, I think what is happening has proved that cricketers have regard for national pride as well, they have proved they are ready to go anywhere without regard for monetary gain.

But the real issue is, how did the confusion happen in the first place? The Games were scheduled four years ago, the Sahara Cup has been a firm understanding for three years now, so why the mixup?

Well, the problem with Sahara Cup is that there is only one ground where the matches are played, the availability of the ground is a problem. Also, there are considerations like the weather, hotel accomodation, things like that. So it is not easy to reschedule.

But why not? Last month, the Indian schedule was free, the cricketers were playing masala games...

The Sahara Cup is an agreement involving three parties -- IMG, which is the organiser, and the boards of Pakistan and India. 500,000 dollars are paid to each of the participating countries, the agreement was signed three years ago though the matches have been played only the last two years. The contract runs for five years, so I am told.

Meanwhile, the Games thing came up, and within the board, there was some uncertainity about whether or not the ICC would recognise it, and also about the nature of the other participating teams, so it was not possible to take an early decision.

Given the side that has been picked, do you see the level of performance going down at Toronto?

I don't think so, we have a superb bowling attack in Srinath, Venkatesh Prasad, Agarkar and Joshi, the batting is also strong with Azza, Sidhu, Saurav and, of course, Dravid.

You don't think we will miss batsmen like Jadeja and Robin?

The batsman who will really be missed is Sachin. Considering the competitive spirit in which the matches between the two teams are played, I think we will be hard pressed in close games, we could fall short at such times and that is when we will miss Sachin and, of course, Ajay and Robin. But what's the use of talking about it, it's too late now.

So you admit that the team for Toronto is less than the best. The BCCI being autonomous, why didn't it simply send the best team to the Sahara Cup? Was there political pressure?

There was no political pressure, we had all decided that we would participate in the Games. It is after all an honour to play for the country, to win a medal. And for this honour, the players were prepared to lose out in so many ways -- their performances won't be recognised, they also tend to lose a lot of money.

Will the BCCI compensate the Kuala Lumpur-bound team for the loss?

Nothing has been decided as yet, but at the general body meeting on the 24th or 25th of September, we will take some decision, compensate the players to whatever extent is possible.

Will this lack of compensation affect performances?

No, how can you say that, do you doubt the sincerity of players like Sachin and Jadeja? Even the government thought that it would be a very important opportunity to win a medal. The presence of Sachin was the main issue, I wouldn't be surprised if he leads the Indian contingent at the opening ceremony. Having won the highest award in the country, the Khel Ratna, I think he would be the natural choice for the contingent leader.

Okay, then, if national pride was the issue, why not send the best team to the Games?

There were many reasons. I will tell you that the ICC directives were not very clear, we weren't sure whether the conditions there were conducive or otherwise. Secondly, the ICC was to send a team to inspect the grounds, to see whether they were eligible for international cricket.

The BCCI was not opposed to sending a team to Kuala Lumpur, but had only maintained that the IOA could not dictate terms to us.

Hypothetically, if Tendulkar had not been picked for KL, would there have been a problem?

Could be. *said, smiling*

You are not sure?

I am not sure, but what I think would have happened is that the government would have intervened.

Do you see in this whole thing a ploy by the IOA to get some mileage, to undercut BCCI's autonomy?

Well, they are talking in respect of medal prospects. They feel that cricket is the main game, and that a medal would help the game develop. I don't agree, because cricket is already a religion in this country.

As far as we were concerned, we had weighed the pros and cons. The commitment to Toronto was not in terms of any particular player, or team of any particular strength. The dates could not be adjusted, as the ground would not be available to us at any other time. Pakistan too had its problems, their players were playing in the county circuit, so they could not agree to bringing the dates forward either, as the English league only ends on September 10. Actually, this was the real problem, India had no problem with bringing the dates forward.

Further, IMG has a relationship with ESPN, thus TV schedules had to be taken into consideration, you should remember that the main money comes from TV rights and not from ground attendance.

If you needed to pick two teams, 28 players, then why were only 22 picked for the conditioning camp?

That was in accordance with Bobby Simpson's condition that the camp would consist of a maximum of 22 players, and not more, he felt that if there were more players, it would dilute the individual attention being paid to each player. So even the eight players who were later added were not allowed to go to the camp, and I must add that coach Anshuman Gaekwad was also a party to this decision.

Why was the board kicking up a fuss about the dope test?

The board was not kicking up any fuss, it was the ICC that would not accept it as a matter of principle. Since however, ICC members are participating in the Games, the ICC has agreed to allow a random test of any one player afer any match, on condition that the results are not divulged.

So then why have such a test?

Well, you have to ask ICC chief executive David Richards that question. Personally, I agree that these tests are pretty stupid, I am personally against them. There is too much of compromise happening, on various aspects. For instance, the cricketers will also have to stay in the Games village, though normally they are entitled to five star accomodation.

What's the big deal? Even Steffi Graf, when she played in the Olympics, stayed in the village and she was the world number one then...

Well yes, but our boys are not accustomed to such treatment, but it must be said that none of them raised a hue and cry about it, they even agreed to take the dope test.

"Frankly, I am not happy about the selection" -- the Ratnakar Shetty interview, continued...